The good news for 2010 is that the climate fraudsters are on the run. The bad news is that they are hoping against hope that the sheriff’s posse won’t catch ‘em. Because the real reason for “global warming” is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt. The reason is ten trillion dollars in taxpayer dough for politicians, transnational bureaucrats, and phony science types. Put away those old world records for the Great Train Robbery and Bernie Madoff. You can junk Bonnie and Clyde. The climate fraudsters have now set the biggest record for massive fraud in human history.

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

Here’s a guy who built a glittering career on global warming fraud. That BBC headline should have collapsed the whole fraud right there and then. After all, the Bolshie Beeb has been leading this charge for decades. Paul Hudson’s public confession is like Gorbachev finally ‘fessing up that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Kim, Pol Pot (and Obama)had it completely wrong after all. All those 100,000,0000 dead people and nothing to show for it. The Beeb’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been pushing global warming every single hour of the day for lo these many years. Now the New York Times actually had to go out and find an honest man to break the news to its readers (John Tierney). Its global frauding correspondent, Andrew Revkin, has resigned and fled the scene of the crime.

Scientists used to be poor but honest, but that was when they slept in garrets and dressed in grungy sweaters. Today they have glittering dollar signs where their eyeballs used to be, like a Vegas slot machine, and their magic number has 13 zeroes: ten trillion dollars for climate fraud. That’s an official estimate from the “Stern Review,” authored by distinguished British fraudocrat Lord Nicholas Stern in 2006. The same number also comes from the skeptical side, from the Marshall Institute, which has done careful economic projections about the cost of “global warming” abatement.

That’ll be ten trillion dollars, please. Cha-ching! Shall I wrap up that planet or do you want to eat it here? Ten trillion buckarooneys is why all those green fraudsters jetted into Copenhagen, and that’s why they kept going for a while even after Climategate ripped open their fraud for all the world to see.

Mr. Obama himself promised in his Democratic Party acceptance speech that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Just like King Canute. Even before, that same Senator Obama co-sponsored a Senate Global Poverty Act, which

… would force America to adopt the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the UN to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product … for an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years.

But that was before Obama became president and the EPA declared CO2 plant nutrition to be a global warming toxin. You can’t breathe out any more, because all the suckers have been convinced that CO2 is killing Mother Earth.

Actually, ten trillion glittering zlotnicks, while a nice round number, was only going to be the start. For example, here’s the National Resources Defense Council estimate of the cost of global warming for the United States alone:

A comprehensive estimate, based on state-of-the-art computer modeling, finds that doing nothing on global warming will cost the United States economy more than 3.6 percent of GDP — or $3.8 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) — by 2100. On the other hand, a detailed, bottom-up analysis finds that just four categories of global warming impacts — hurricane damage, real estate losses, increased energy costs and water costs — will add up to a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be. This report’s findings are undeniable – we must act now,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.” (emphasis added)

Tony Blair, whose Labour government in the UK helped put the fraudocrats in place at Hadley CRU, actually had the immortal gall to say in Copenhagen, “The world must take action on climate change even if the science is not correct.” That’s like your plumber telling you, “You know what I told you about ripping out all the pipes in your house? Well, that was wrong, but you owe me the same amount to fix it.”

That’s when Annie got her gun, and so should we. As a newly minted Catholic, I trust Tony Blair will go to his priest for a long, long confession now about telling the biggest whopper of his whole career.

75 Comments, 75 Threads

1.
CoolingDude

“What happened to global warming?” This obviously is just killing the global warming fanatics and it just keeps on coming. See this latest chart that shows negative correlation between global temperatures and CO2 thru year end of 2009:

James Lewis – spot-on. I should add that the warmists are another variety of Malthusians and eugenecists. They want to tell us what to do, and by god, they’ll make us do it even if it’s not good for us, but they think it is. Don’t expect the MSM (inlcuding the beeb) to contradict them. Terrifying the people sells papers and brings listners to the radio and TV.

Good job, Mr. Lewis. I saw Richard Lindzen on a Youtube version of a Climategate discussion at MIT. He was, as expected, a rock of sanity amid an ocean of Climategate sympathizers. It was really disheartening to see several MIT scientists buy into the Climategate hype. MIT made its reputation on engineering. If they too suffer from this disease then you know things are really bad elsewhere.

Keep an eye out. The Green left is going to try to revive this fraud. Either they get prosecuted for criminal fraud or they’ll be back.

As an AGW skeptic and anti-hysteric I say we need to refrain from prosecuting people for what amounts to thought crimes. Bad science shoud be fought with good science. We should not oppose the AGW hysteria by hysterically corrupting the law.

“I say we need to refrain from prosecuting people for what amounts to thought crimes”
Agreed for folks that were stupid enough to believe this non-sense, however there are a lot of people who profited and passed laws knowing this was all crap from the start. Al Gore being one of them. He has known all along that this was just a smoke screen to achieve an end. Fraud all the way down the line.

These aren’t merely thought crimes, my friend; we’re talking massive fraud. It’s like Jim and Tammy Faye selling memberships to a theme park that was never built. The AGW mafia procured money under false pretenses. I hope they get their cells warmed by unscientific room-mates.

Al gore should be the first on the list to be prosecuted, There must be some retribution against these criminals or it will happen over and over. Laws which are not enforced or ignored are in fact encouraging criminals. They must be punished.

Individuals who have profited through knowing fraudulent misrepresentations can and should be prosecuted, just as much as the Bernie Madoffs and Ken Lays. As one mining engineer commented after reading the Climategate files, if a mining company published a prospectus based on “science” as shoddy as that underpinning AGW hysteria, they’d all go to jail.

I doubt that Good Science has much of a chance at overcoming Bad Science so long as the corrupt variety is underwritten by profiteers with hundreds of billions on the line.

I’m kinda chuckling to myself imagining Al Gore, in all his nekkid emporishness, having to spend some of that loot he’s stashed away while scaremongering on global warming. Those arctic parkas with the fur-lined hoods can’t be cheap.

George soros pays Joe Romm at Climate progress to talk up warming. Soros is a convicted felon for his trading crimes. If they can talk up warming using sock puppets, they can manipulate the energy markets.
Now the actual alarmism is turning into a neurosis. It is just another anxiety disorder. Sub zero temps and blizzards do not cure anxiety disorders that generate fear of warming.

If the current AGW scam finally falls apart, they are ready for the next round of bullscat. This will be either changes in atmospheric levels of nitrogen, or oxygen depletion, or both combined with ocean acidification. Gee, can’t wait!

Fraudulent or incompetent? Since the scare-mongers are making big bucks from the carbon credits, it seems that the motive may be less than ‘save the planet’. Well timed in this event is nature producing the coldest winter in 25 years. What is hard to compensate is that people liked to be conned by the staged shaman-magicians.

The day the oceans stopped rising and the planet started healing was the day he got elected. He thinks it’s because he’s the chosen one when actually it’s just a coincidence. We now know that AGW is a fraud and in due time this country will know that he is too.

The only unfortunate thing about this article is that the title perpetuates another piece of misinformation, namely the widely misunderstood & misused art & science of Astrology. True, much of modern astrology falls in the ‘love light & clueless ‘ category- but the lesser known Classical roots- including the work of Ptolemy, Lilly, Ramesey, Bonatus, Al Birini, Dorotheus, etc have a high degree of accuracy.
Check out Arch Crawford’s financial astrology sometime. the 2008/2009 markets were predicted with high accuracy. That’s ok, you just strayed into a popular misconception. Ironic.

Other than that, great article! What people need to understand is that the “climate issue” is just another means of the elites to run the world.
Search “Cloward-Piven strategy” at such as Discoverthenetworks. Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.

Ah, another dose of name-calling and blather. Yes, the huge movement of the warmists makes me uncomfortable as well, but it’s not as if there isn’t a fair amount of evidence supporting their concerns. CO2 does contributes to warming, even when it lags warming, but what is not known is how the climate sensitivity increases as the ppm of CO2 rises and how muc it can offset or accelaerate other natural cycles of warming or cooling. 1998 was thhe warmest year on record, and since “climate” by definitiion exists only in a minimum of thirty-year chunks, ten years of not setting anoter record, does not disprove a general warming trend It is not clear what the best way to address the CO2 “problem” would be, when and if action must be taken, but just because all elements of the climate are not known, does not mean that there might not be a serious problem.

If a fair number of people would love to use AGW to invoke bigger government, another large segment is so opposed to government intervention that they will deny any problem because of THEIR politics. It is not an easy issue, but this “fraudster” meme is more political rhetoric than anything else. As I said on another thread, check out Realclimate, and yes, Climateaudit as well and try to do some thinking and learning, as intellectually demanding as that might be. There is so much information to be considered and weighed, but what the hell, it’s a lot easier to just blather, bluster, and cherry pick to support an agenda, either way.

After the two-week global-warming schmooze-fest in Copenhagen (these people can really chow down on the canapes) I am again confident in my thesis that nearly all of the bad things that have occurred since 1966 have their origin in “Star Trek.” Why? Well, for eco-nut progressives, the attraction of Star Trek and all the following once-upon-a-time-somewhere-in-the-galaxy type sci-fi isn’t the lure of adventure, discovering new places and people or even the shiny technology. No, for them the draw is “The Federation.” A massive inter-galactic bureaucracy staffed by regal-yet-touchy-feely types who come together in some great hall to pompously drone away at each other in vaguely humanitarian tones. These conclaves allow royalty to be senators (Star Wars) and are usually presided over by some pruny Dame Judith Anderson type speaking in that wierdly stilted pseudo-classical dialect made famous by that old broad in the episode where Spock desperately needed a date. That’s what the Copenhagen event resembled. A collection of unreal characters talking about irrelevant fictions in a mind-numbing international newspeak who would really, really like us to just sign over our rights and liberties to them and get it over with. Facts and science don’t mean very much because the process, not the science. is the objective. The important thing for these people is to get together on a trans-global stage and parade their colossal sense of virtue and self-worth before the rest of us while John Williams faintly facistic theme-music blares in the background. (OK – that was a cheap shot at Mr. Williams.) They ain’t going away because we have all made it possible for them to make this sort of thing into highly remunerative careers.

Official State religion of the United States – environmentalism
Just what the founders tried to prevent in our Constitution, please read it.
In case you might want to rail at me for my christian views, I am neither a christian nor am I an environmentalist. But there is one big difference between these groups. The environmentalists are picking my pocket as only a State sponsored religion can. Just go to the US Forest Service website to get a glimpse into just how pervasive environmentalism has become. And your kids get taught this crap in the government schools K-12 and beyond.

Anticipating that Astrology commenters here would not answer with some scientific foundations for Astrology, I googled for some myself. After seeing the ‘answers’ out there I am embarassed that I even asked the question.

I thought being a GW believer was naive ignorance. Silly me; the scientific ‘explanations’ of Astrology would embarass a Scientologist.

Global warming alarmism is a worship service for patheistic religion. True Believers have many other worship services, like ‘clean water shortage’ where they can profess their faith and ignore the evidence of their senses.

The beauty of this patheism is that aside from the emotional grant of smug moral superiority, it is a religion where one’s acts are not in the least bit important, only the expression of the proper beliefs.

With the following headlines at drudgereport and moreso at wattsupwiththat, climatedepot, chillingeffect, scienceblogs etc., where is the ever so trusty David ‘Peace’ S with IPCC and WMO findings? Yo Davey, I froze my coconuts when in Belgium recently. Whoda thunk it?

Dwight
The reason rising CO2 levels follow warming is because, as the oceans warm, they RELEASE CO2. Simple chemistry. 400 to 800 year lag time. The warmest years on record were during the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was settled by the Vikings. Raised livestock and crops. In Britain they grew grapes and made wine, much too cool for that now. On Wikipedia, they have a crew that has erased the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age(as Mann did with his computer code and “fudge factors”). I’m very doubtful of the data for 1998, as they fudged so much of their data (using reporting stations in Antarctica that were buried or broken, for example). Your websites are appologists for these criminal fraudsters. Their emails and phony computer code is all we need to convict them. The RUSSIANS have accused them of fraud when data used for Russian reporting stations was released! They only used the 40% of stations that supported warming, and cherry picked data from them.

You are vaguely right (better then being precisely wrong) when you say climate occurs in 30 year chunks. However who is to say which thirty year chunk counts? Rather then saying just because the last ten years have not shown warming does not mean that warming isn’t occurring you could have said that the preceding ten year warming trend doesn’t mean that the earth isn’t cooling.

Climate doesn’t happen in thirty year chunks, it happens in millennial slabs. The time constant of integration for climate is in the hundreds if not thousands of years. Taking that perspective we should integrate temperature over the last 1000 years to determine if the planet is heating up or cooling down. My eyeball integration of the past 10 centuries says that climate has been pretty stable over that time.

The scientific fraud perpetrated by money and power hungry scientists at CRU, NASA and NOAA leaves us in a position of not knowing what is going on climate-wise. The data is so corrupt we could be going into a new little ice age (or worse) and it will be upon us before we know what is happening.

# 32 Steve S wrote:
Dwight
The reason rising CO2 levels follow warming is because, as the oceans warm, they RELEASE CO2. Simple chemistry. 400 to 800 year lag time. The warmest years on record were during the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was settled by the Vikings. Raised livestock and crops. In Britain they grew grapes and made wine, much too cool for that now.
————-
And the released CO2 then contributes to further warming.

And yes, there are Viking graves and foundations which are still in permafrost, which were obviously not frozen in the MWP, but that is not necessarily evidence for world-wide warming at that time. To me, the big question is if we had a natural MWP event ON TOP OF our artificially elevated CO2 levels, would we have a serious crisis?

Seriously, why don’t you put aside your righty talking points and just study the data further. I’m not saying that you will be converted, as I do not consider myself converted, but I have at least gotten beyond “money, power hungry fraud” blather. Spend a few hours at Realclimate and tell me if you hear those things. What is troubling about the deniers is that many tend to get two or three “proofs” of the lack of AGW and they extrapolate from that. There is a lot of data to be dealt with, but most of the blog deniers can’t be bothered to go in to any depth. McIntyre and Lindzen are knowledgeable responsible people, I think, but most of you grab onto a couple points you think are trump cards and throw them out there as if they erased all doubt. They don’t.

You seem to admit that when you go as far as acknowledging that we don’t know for sure what is going on. There are at least four separate sets of data, by the way, not to mention all the proxies.

More than likely, if any long-term warming is occuring, we are reverting to the ‘warm’ state of the High Middle Ages or the Middle Bronze Age. Neither of those ‘warm’ periods were catastrophic to humankind or nature. Also, a better term for those climatic periods would be ‘mild,’ rather than ‘warm.’ The principal signature of these historical climatic events was milder winters, rather than scorching summers.

This is not to say that there may not be some profound changes for some people and natural systems as the ‘warming’ (again, assuming this is not just a decades-long cycle, but a centuries-long event), but the ‘crises’ will simply be a nibbling around the edges caused by the warming, such as flat island chains losing shorelines, river deltas expanding nad other wetlands ‘suffering’ seawater encroachment, and winter-dependent resorts. Also, we have much larger populations and resource consumption than in those past times, which is a factor to consider. But none of this requires the draconian measures proposed by AGW fraudster/fanatics.

The second question is: are humans the cause, or even just part of the cause of what may be a long-term ‘milding’ trend? Perhaps, but not likely. Keep in mind that for much of its existence, the industrial revolution was confined to one quadrant of the northern hemisphere straddling the North Atlantic. Such a small footprint couldn’t have, in any way, affected atmospheric temperatures worldwide. Any human effect would have been well within the lifetime of baby boomers. A recently-released report shows that nature’s CO2 absorption mechanisms are still robust, so it’s not likely that the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are sufficient to cause higher atmospheric temperatures at this time (besides, CO2 is a trace gas, as are other greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the primary ‘greenhouse gas,’ NOT CO2).

I became a skeptic when I noticed the cavalier disregard shown by ‘scientists’ and AGW activists for the lessons and anecdotes of history. I was baffled that AGW’ers based their assumptions on timelines so short that it would make ardent Creationists blush.

OK, that is a reasonable response and it is certainly is a valid question about how bad would things get. If all or most of the ice caps melted, we obviously would have serious problems from Bangladesh to New Orleans and so many other coastal areas. There is that damned Catch 22 about their saying that we have to act BEFORE the serious consequences appear, given the lag time, or even impossibility of remediation once we get too much CO2.

I am not yet prepared to impose draconian measures, but so much of the denial I hear has a kind of stridency which is supposed to convince exactly…who? Or is it a response to the fearful outcome which has been brandished in front of us?

It is possible that we will use up all our fossil fuels before we raise the CO2 to levels which would have the terrible impacts, but there will also be a point where we are considering the use of the less efficient reserves, tar sands etc, which would release even greater amounts of CO2 in their production as well as consumption, but that is a question for the future. I am with Hansen to the extent that I think that we have to turn more to nuclear. Maybe we can agree on that.

#34 Dwight Realclimate? You mean they are no longer holding comments in the queue? Didn’t Professor Jones write in an email, ” We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’ get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…” The website is a propaganda tool to squelch debate and keep their “useful idiots” in line. Two or three proofs? Einstein remarked when confronted by 100 nazi scientist opposed to his theory of relativity, “Why 100? It would only have taken one of them to prove me wrong? It only takes one fact to disprove a thoery. That being said, the AGW theory has more holes in it than a brick of swiss cheese.

You said, “but I have at least gotten beyond “money, power hungry fraud” blather. Spend a few hours at Realclimate and tell me if you hear those things.” These guys are part of the conspiracy, do you really think they are going to say they were defrauding the taxpayers? The gang at CRU were told that they might not get paid. They started screaming that the sky will fall if the taxpayer doesn’t pay up and then they defrauded Joe Six pack.

Great non sequitur, “To me, the big question is if we had a natural MWP event ON TOP OF our artificially elevated CO2 levels, would we have a serious crisis?” The MWP was “natural” in that it was warmer yet CO2 levels were lower. Since CO2 levels are higher today temperatures should be warmer than the MWP, but they aren’t.

“And the released CO2 then contributes to further warming.” Prove it! During the late Ordovician period 350,000,000 years ago the CO2 level was 4,400 ppm and we were in one of the worst ice ages the world has ever seen. The 600,000,000 shows NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temperatures. You said “we don’t know what is going on. There isn’t a shred of empirical evidence to prove that man has had anything but a trivial impact on the climate. It is incumbent upon the proponents of the AGW theory to prove their case.

You finished with, “There are at least four separate sets of data, by the way, not to mention all the proxies.” Indeed! To expand on #32, temps rise 800 +/- 200 years before CO2 rises and temps decline 800 +/- 200 years before CO2 follows, no runaway greenhouse gas effect! Saying CO2 causes temperatures to rise is akin to saying cancer causes smoking! The Wegman report not only debunked the MBH98 hockey stick but said that tree ring data is unreliable. Briffa’s tree ring data showed a decline in recent temperatures. The “Harry Read Me File” shows that the CRU “fudged” the computer code to show an artificial decrease in past temperatures and an increase in recent temperatures. Mann showed Jones his ‘nature trick” to “hide the decline” by deleting the recent unreliable tree ring data and replacing it with fraudulent temperature data to deceive the masses and keep the grant money rolling in. Mann was showing them a “trick” he had already performed. Logic dictates that since the CRU data is fraudulent, accurate and correct data would be different but the transatlantic cabal stated that the CRU and NOAA/GISS data were in “substantial agreement.” Even inspector Clouseau could have connected the dots. It is no coincidence that when rural station only are used the “warming” disappears! Watts has shown that over 80% of NOAA measuring stations do not meet NOAA standards. Hansen keeps revising his numbers, does he ever get it right? How does he account for the UHIE effect when thermometers are located over barbeques and next to air conditioning heat exhaust vents? Both of the two “authoritative” land based temperature data sets are corrupt and unreliable. The two satellite sources UAH and RSS measure the movement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere and then calibrate the data against the land based data sets. Therefore, all four sets are unreliable!

As deep throat said, “follow the money.” Mann, Jones Wrigley and the rest of their ilk will wind up behind bars. The only exception would be the first guy to turn states evidence. If that isn’t more than a coupe of “points” just let me know and I will be more than happy to enlighten you further.

You seem truly interested and open for discussion until you’d mentioned ‘RealClimate’ as ‘validity’.

Not to mention Hansen is a kook. His data sets on RealClimate is fodder for many. Especially his 2nd data set whereas if we did nothing, temperatures would rise dramatically..

As you know, we’ve (U.S.) done nothing. The temperatures are even LOWER than if we (U.S. again) drastically cut our CO2 emissions according to his ‘data’!

Look, honestly look at the contributor’s credentials from RealClimate and tell me there’s no agenda.

I’m familiar with NCAR protocol. BTW, it is the most beautiful weather building I’ve been in. Truly. Federal dollars pumped into it is a blunt reminder of what data’s received better jive with the Feds wishes..

I worked for the NWS for 2 years and saw their cutting corners and overlooking data sets. Hiring inexperienced folks who obtain an online BS degree for which the NWS covers. I’m not trying to come off as a snob but classroom analysis, vis-a-vis discussion is crucial for progressing in academia in ANY field. Scary stuff..

As mentioned before, NOAA’s NBDC has so many buoy’s inop/ recording incorrect data in the Pacific and Atlantic that many of my friends in ag meteorology firms along the coast discount the ‘data’. It’s pathetic.

I was at the South Pole during the ’03-’04 Austral Summer. I was 1 of 2 people to be flown via twin otter to chip/ dig snow, ice and rime out and away from several remote automated weather stations.

The data was erroneous, for years, due to the rime acting like a blanket or shield around the data collection sensors.

FYI, South Pole Station recorded its coldest winter to date within the last year or 2 since setting up shop there in 1958.

I’ve mentioned some reputable sites (again, JMO) as well in an earlier post on this thread.

I worked with a brilliant Russian (though he prefers ‘Caucasian’ beig from the Caucus area) Meteorologist, Dr. Viktor Makitov in India during their monsoon season.

I grilled him constantly to sway me if I was in the AGW camp. The reasons were infinite-like.

Great article, James, with one important caveat : we do not need to wait for criminal prosecution. I doubt the government types will ever take on their own. However, each of us has access to the court by the way of civil lawsuits … civil rico, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, common law theft, and so on. It can be done in regular court in local jurisdictions or in small claims court. Who would be the defendants? Al Gore and John Does 1 – 100 (being all of the corrupt scientists, journalists and govt agency workers).

Small claims is cheap, easy and fun. And they cannot sic their expensive lawyers on you … lawyers are not allowed to participate.

Image millions of small claims lawsuits against these environmental perverts and we can reclaim our money and our land.

Todd #23; sorry to disappoint, I work for a living. Just read an interesting introduction to a translation of Ptolemy’s Quattro Biblios by Sir Isaac Newton. To give you a full answer would be too far off topic to this thread; would have to get into a discussion involving quantum physics; (electromagnetic/plasma models of the universe make gravitational models look pretty obsolete)However, consider the fibonacci ratios of the orbital distances of the planets in this solar system. Ask any woman if a 28 day (lunar) cycle means anything to them in some regard or another. Follow the full moon & detailed planetary cycles with regard to E.R. activity, market cycles, radio transmission, etc….There are many hard science studies that correlate- I just don’t have time to do your homework, especially if you think you already know the answer.

Dwight #20: “There is so much information to be considered and weighed, but what the hell, it’s a lot easier to just blather, bluster, and cherry pick to support an agenda, either way.”

What a disingenuous ending to your post. Years of blather, bluster and cherry picking by the AGW set is now nicely offset in your mind by these few months of exposure of this fraudulant rip off. Yea, jump ball. And just what is the other agenda? I haven’t heard any “deniers” asking for money, jobs, grants or a free trip to Copenhagen. Geeze.

dwight~ please explain to us why the first IPCC report contains a chart clearly showing the MidEival Warming Period (2-3 degrees C warmer than today) and the Little Ice Age (2 degrees Colder than today).

Then please explain to us why following charts Show a nearly horizontal line of temperatures for the past thousand years, completely eliminating both the MWP and the LIA?

And then please explain to us why new (and I should add, REAL) science is showing that both of these periods were, indeed, World-Wide, when the people at ‘real’climate won’t even acknowledge they existed at all?

The BBC is the mouthpiece of the British government, the centre of global finance. Nothing remotely left wing about that. Margaret Thatcher created the Hadley Centre in her war against the coal unions. The Chicago Carbon Exchange is not a communist front.

As a denier, all I want is for the government, UN, climate change “experts”, and whomever else is perpetuating this scam out of my WALLET. If they want to fund some cap and trade legislation without my help, if they want to foot the ENTIRE bill, then by all means, knock yourselves out. The problem is liberals only want to spend YOUR money.

Nature Magazine is also a major player here. They are owned by Macmillan Publishing. Macmillan publishes science textbooks in a lucrative US market. The nation’s schools are full of their science books. The nation’s school libraries are full of their Global Warming trade books.

Climateaudit has a running discussion going on about Nature Magazine. This science could have been slowed considerably years ago if Nature had published McIntyre’s work, instead of asking an AGW promoter to review it first.

Oops, I’ve let a fascinating Revolutionary War journal (of Col. Judathan Baldwin on Google Books) distract me from AGW responses. I do think that there was definitely something fishy about Mann’s hockey stick. It should have had two blades, one for MWP and one for now.

I don’t have time to respond more right now, but will stick to the simple point that because the MWP did happen, does not prove that AGW is not happening now. Yes, there are the natural cycles and effects; it is not an either/or. Because there was some fishy stuff happening at RC, does NOT prove that everything there is bogus, just as because Big Oil pays a lot of the skeptics millions of dollars, does not prove that they are wrong. I repeat; the tendency is to grab one or two mistakes or indiscretions by the other side and use it to dismiss everything they do. People do it in politics and they do it with AGW.

Guess where Dwight is:
The AGW crowd can be broken down into two groups. The first group (the followers) includes the uninformed, the gullible, the well intentioned but naive, the sincere but mislead, many journalists and researchers, and yes, the just plain stupid. I would think it safe to say that these people all believe that most of the recent global warming must have been or was caused by human activity – primarily CO2 emissions. These people are not evil, they are just wrong.

The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, etc extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.

Let there be no doubt that I have the deepest respect for those truly concerned with legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group should forever condemn those of the second.

It is maddening to be put in a position where you have to prove that another person’s beliefs or theories are incorrect in order to stop them from doing something to you. The burden of proof was and is is on the AGW crowd and in the absence of a compelling case they have resorted to lies, data fabrications and woefully inadequate computer models.

The skepticalscience.com has a long list of “rebuttals” that just repackage the case that didn’t convince in the first place. Go away please. The world will be just fine without your massive cap and trade and wealth transfer schemes. As someone said above: if you believe in AGW then knock yourself out doing whatever you think is best. But leave the rest of us alone.

And BTW Dwight, your inclusion of “big oil pays a lot of skeptics millions” shows that your attempt to be somewhat measured about this issue was a charade. Any proof of this or did that data get deleted? Big Oil will be fine either way. In case you haven’t noticed they all think of themselves as “big energy” and whatever we do they will still be there competing and making a return on assets invested – just as it should be in a free society.

#55 Dwight,
Could you please substantiate your accusation that “Big Oil” is funding the skeptics to the tune of millions of dollars. From what I’ve observed, the big players have completely embraced the AGW and CO2 nonsense, if for no other reason than to stay profitable.
A reminder, the same bunch who advocated expanded government in the late 1970′s to combat the “Global Cooling” crisis, never mind the crazy schemes they pushed to prevent it, are the same bunch that are at the heart of this conspiracy to raise our taxes and limit our freedoms. And another question for all of you who are much smarter than I, why are we continueiing to argue with known liars and frauds about the details of the lie??? It’s akin to argueing with a 10 year old when you’ve caught him red handed and he still says his sister did it. These AGW fraudsters have been caught red-handed, nothing of what they say should be believed without verification by an unbiased source. It is incumbent on those demanding massive change of society to prove beyond a doubt that these changes are needed, not brow beat us into submission. All they have shown to date is that they are willing to lie and deceive by any means to acheive their goals and to save face. If you continue to believe anything a liar says after you know he is a liar, well who is the fool then???????

It is possible that we will use up all our fossil fuels before we raise the CO2 to levels which would have the terrible impacts, but there will also be a point where we are considering the use of the less efficient reserves, tar sands etc, which would release even greater amounts of CO2 in their production as well as consumption, but that is a question for the future. I am with Hansen to the extent that I think that we have to turn more to nuclear. Maybe we can agree on that.

It is not certain — despite claims to the contrary — that CO2 always precedes warming; sometimes it follows warming. The principal ‘greenhouse gas’ is water vapor, not CO2, and CO2 levels have been rising despite a recent trend towards either flattening of the ‘warming,’ or even outright cooling. Also, a recent report states that nature’s ability to absorb CO2 is still quite robust. There’s a lot more oil, coal, and gas available than is ordinarily stated, so it will actually be generations before we run out; that can be taken as either good or bad news, depending on one’s viewpoint. However, in order to have a robust economy, even with an agggressive program to develop renewables, we are going to need to use more hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future rather than less, until such times as alternatives can meet the needs of a huge and wealthy country such as ours. I agree with you that nuclear is a viable option, especially since safer, more compact reactor technologies are available.

But the thing is Dwight, the science no longer matters, and the irony is that it is the AGW crowd that has made it irrelevant by hijacking it and twisting it all out proportion. IF there is any long-term warming going on, it is most likely very incremental, and subject to fits and starts (as the current flattening/cooling trend demonstrates). Intrusive government and fanatical activists have placed a couple of degrees of separation between the general public and the actual scientists, and that has caused suspicion and resentment on the part of a large portion of the general public. There is no substantiated evidence that we are coming up on a period of catastrophic climate change, particularly involving dramatic warming, so there is no need for colossal, world-wide drastic measures to combat a virtual phantom. Even prominent scientists who believe in AGW tried to get activists, the media, and politicians to ‘cool their jets’ with over-the-top scare tactics and misinformation.

Any ‘warming’ that may be occurring we can adjust to as the adaptable species we’ve always been. We’re not facing extinction or dire misery because of ‘warming.’

The whole AGW phenomenon is an extension and magnification of decades of left/activist-led efforts to deal with environmental and health “crises.” Time and again this aggregate of progressives, bureaucrats and politicians have tested the limits of how much they can get away with by frightening us with everything from Radon to asbestos, with Love Canal, breast implants, ozone layers, and electric power lines in between. In each and every case they’ve found out that they can get away with a lot. In each and every one of the ‘crises’ I listed above there was some merit to the risks identified, but none were the catastrophic or major problems that they were made out to be, and a few were downright bogus (and all the legitimate refutations of the hype were buried on the back pages of the media). AGW is simply the culmination of this pattern, the ‘Mother of All Enviroscares,’ if you will. People are finally catching on to the scam, but it is a tragedy for legitimate science.

So the AGW theory is that CO2 acts like an insulating blanket in the troposphere absorbing infrared radiation that the earth is trying to radiate out to space … But doesn’t that same CO2 material also absorb incoming solar irradiance in the exact same infrared spectrum and then radiate it when possible towards a cooler area, (usually outerspace), long before that heat/energy can reach the surface of the earth? And for the Tropospheric CO2 to ever be able to radiate that extra heat/energy towards the earth, the earth or its lower atmospheres MUST be cooler than the troposphere, (2nd law of thermodynamics – Heat/energy can only radiate/migrate towards a cooler mass) … Does anyone know how often the earth’s surface or at least the lower levels of the atmosphere/troposphere are cooler than the higher levels of the atmosphere/troposphere to allow this “downward” transfer of heat/energy? … (Being a pilot and observing altitude – temperature differences, my guess is not very damned often!) … Anyway … the greater the CO2 loading, the less direct infrared heat/energy that reaches the earth from the sun in the first place. Seems logical to think that this absorption of energy is just as likely to occur as the absorption of the reflected energy from the earth’s surface … and just as unlikely to radiate that heat/energy downward. I’ve read a lot about AGW in the past decade, but I do not recall seeing this issue addressed to any significant, (to my satisfaction anyway), level.

Note that I did not say that every skeptic was funded by big oil, but the oil companies spend huge amounts of money each year for lobbying and research, including climate research. I’ll try to find the link, but if you don’t think that Exxon & others spend millions in all these areas, then I have some nice low land in Bangladesh I can get for you at a pretty good price. By the way, just because Exxon funds a scientist, doesn’t mean that he/she is necessarily going to come up with a study they like…..does it?????

I agree that a lot of the recent scares from radon to electric power lines have been shaky, but PCB’s, Diauxin, tobacco, and asbestos have proven to be very dangerous, despite massive business funding to avoid such findings. You don’t DENY that do you? The whole “terrible crisis” vs ” business as usual” dance done between environmentalists, scientists, and business, can lurc either way. One camp feel they have to (over) dramatize the dangers and the other camp denies anything which will cost them or their stockholders money.

‘because the MWP did happen, does not prove that AGW is not happening now.’ ~ Dwight

I did not say it is proof that fraudulent AGW is not happening, we already Know that the latest round of natural global warming has come to an end. I ASKED what happened to it in the IPCC report? I also wonder if you can explain how michael mann managed to misplace it in his ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of the past thousand years.

I agree that a lot of the recent scares from radon to electric power lines have been shaky, but PCB’s, Diauxin, tobacco, and asbestos have proven to be very dangerous, despite massive business funding to avoid such findings. You don’t DENY that do you? The whole “terrible crisis” vs ” business as usual” dance done between environmentalists, scientists, and business, can lurc either way. One camp feel they have to (over) dramatize the dangers and the other camp denies anything which will cost them or their stockholders money.

Some good points, Dwight, but I would diverge from you on 1) asbestos, and 2) the level of ‘danger’ of Dioxins and PCBs in the general environment. Asbestos is a danger where it can be inhaled in significant amounts over an extended period of time, as in mining it, and when installing asbestos panels during construction (and much of that hazard can be alleviated by proper on-the-job precautions). All the tearing out of asbestos from buildings and the banning of its use for fireproofing were for naught. The Dioxin and PCB debates revolved around the amounts of particulate matter that most people are exposed to most of the time, and the truth is those most common levels of exposure are minimal and well below a hazardous threshold — usually. But dangerous dioxin and PCB contamination has been documented in certain environments. Genuine environmental catastrophes due to hazardous chemicals and other waste are documented, and industry is to blame; but what has happened in the interim is that various interest groups have taken advantage of the situation for their own benefit.

Tobacco companies did indeed manipulate data to try to minimize the dangers of their products, and it may even be true that they tried to make some of their products even more addictive. But that isn’t the problem with how the tobacco issue was handled. The transgressions of the tobacco industry became a vehicle for law firms to enrich themselves to fabulous levels, and for various states to acquire alternate funding to taxation. These states had no intention of earmarking tobacco-settlement money for state citizens suffering from tobaco-related illnesses, even though that was the intent. What has happenned, and what has become the overarching issue in all these “environmental” battles, is that each “crisis” has been hijacked and manipulated by an unscrupulous aggregate of activists, politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats, and ALL to their benefit rather than for the general public or any actual victims.

In the AGW debate, the issue has been appropriated by those who would benefit from it both finacially and/or by the acquisition of power. Carbon trading was pioneered by a company called Enron. Remember them? And the UN, the various nations and the EU, AGW activists, the U.S. Congress, etc., want to saddle the world with a gigantic version of that corrupt, fraudulent process? Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech not to make science do the bidding of government and bureaucracies, and we ignored him. Science in the public interest is a good thing, but if it lacks the integrity of, say, an independent judiciary, then it can often be manipulated by the unscrupulous in power. And that last issue is not bound just to the so-called ‘left.’

#62 Otter No I don’t know that the latest round of global warming has come to an end. Supposedly three or four of the hottest years ever have happened in the last ten years; they just couldn’t match 1998, although I have heard claims that recent years have been as hot. All I will acknowledge is that we have not had terrific increases in the last ten years…and it has been a cold Dec-Jan in New England so far :-).

As for the hockey stick stuff, I can’t say anything beyond what the skeptical science site says on it. Have you checked it? But I will admit that I am skeptical of the fact that their follow-up temps generally start at 1000 AD, whereas, I would like to see them from 500AD on. I have 800AD stuck in my mind as the beginning of MWP. But I am just scrambling around with the “facts” here. Are you POSITIVE that there is no AGW? I will admit that I just don’t know.

Some great posts here.. Nobody mentioned the latest nutty move by Obama administration.. Even the NY Times covered the CIA’s use of their satellites (ours) to “spy” on the effects of Warming..? You can’t make this stuff up.. Gore says the earths’ inner temps are millions of degrees on Conan O’brian and he got away with that doosy and now we have the CIA playing stupid games with satellites instead of looking for terrorists…. Global Warming is the excuse to place a toll on every road in the developed world….. Julian Simon was always right and Paul Ehrlich has yet to be…..

Dwight,
The “terrible crisis” is “business as usual” for the AGW gang. As for “big oil” I think that they are just as afraid of the alternate theory of oil’s genesis, the one explored by soviet scientists that has led them to great discoveries. Discounting the “peak oil” nonsense could lead to a collapse of their stranglehold on the carbon fuel prices. Yes of course the corportations have been found guilty of fraud but when politicians perpetuate such frauds with the help of socalled “scientists”, it usually leads to the death or needless suffering of untold numbers. Look, if someone has been found to be lying to you, wouldn’t you normally question pretty much everything they ever told you? I certainly would and all the more so when they want to completely alter my society -based solely on a false claim. Back to CO2, at 380 parts per million, if you could seperate it out as a single layer of the atmosphere, how thick would it be? If we figure it only in the troposhere, about 7 miles or 36,960 feet, if my math is right, that would be a layer about 14′ in thickness. But it’s not, it’s dipersed throughout that 36,960 feet of atmosphere. And it’s the new bogeyman? I recently read an article that qoutes Dr Craig Idso stating that plant’s are basically CO2 starved at levels of 280ppm or lower. Our current level of 380ppm is far better for plant life (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/06/the-heretics-dr-craig-idso-by-rich-trzupek/) so go figure.

Dwight, ‘skeptic..’ and ‘Realclimate’ sites is provided by AGW folks. I remember people would reference Wikipedia as validity for their point! Unbelievable..

I haven’t looked at ‘skeptic..’ site in months. Though I recall a discussion with ‘the hottest year’. Claims of 1998, another claiming 2005.

It’s known for sometime 1934 has been the hottest year to date. Some 40-50 years after the Industrial Revolution.. which is a real bummer to the AGW crowd.

Mann, McIntyre and sadly Hansen is given too much credo on the aforementioned sites for their ridiculous findings (climateaudit, hockey stick and a myriad of others, the silly ’88 charts..).

Sadly, so much ‘data’ has been manipulated, skewed or ‘lost’ for decades. Decades, because of those who prop up AGW as a marketing tool/ploy.

Al Gore realized the possibilities. He wasn’t the first to cash in but was the first to capitalize greatest on the power of lying and suggestion..

The data is so skewed, so incomplete and for all purposes, misunderstood that incorporating c’r'ap n trade, this and previous administrations choosing not to drill/ being self sufficient, tiny powerless hybrid cars replacing real cars et al.

In essence ending millions of folks’ (and the ability for these families to provide) employment for an inaccurate, unrealized ‘science’ is the true crime..

Er, you’d better check out the skepticscience site because it addresses the 1934 question directly. 1934 was the hottest year in the U.S., not the world. And aren’t you a little confused about McIntyre?

I find more field experience supporting astrology’s predictions that Aquarians are ditzy, Taureans like to eat heartily, and Geminis can’t make up their minds than I do that man is causing global warming.

If post 49 was from George Monbiot- here is what he believes – and I quote -

“I hereby commit the United States to cutting greenhouse gases by 50% against our 1990 levels by 2020. I commit to this cut regardless of what other nations might do, but I urge you to compete with me to exceed it. We should be striving to outbid each other, not to undercut each other.”

“We should not oppose the AGW hysteria by hysterically corrupting the law.”

Impossible. Let the law work. Arrest these people for fraud and let the jury decide if they are guilty or not. You deciding they are not all by your lonesome self is just as bad as someone deciding they are all by their lonesome self.
Arrest them, set bond, bring them to trial then let the jury decide.
That is NOT corrupting then Law, it is letting the Law work as it is supposed to work.